When the hearings were over the University was left with charges of communism
among its faculty and the question of what to do. Could Allen have chosen not
to act on the information from the hearings? Sanders thinks not. The regents
had publicly indicated their intention to proceed if Allen didn't. Regent
Joseph Drumheller had even stated at one point that he knew there was
"subversive activity" on the campus. Rather than defy the committee and his
bosses, Allen responded to faculty pleas for sovereignty in the matter. He
named a faculty committee to determine who would face dismissal, promising that
those charged would receive a hearing before the Faculty Senate's Committee on
Tenure and Academic Freedom.

Those considered uncooperative at the Canwell hearings paid the price. The
committee decided to charge Phillips, Butterworth and Gundlach, who had refused
to testify, as well as Eby, Ethel and Jacobs, who had admitted past membership
in the Communist Party but had refused to name others.

Communist Party membership was not grounds for dismissal in the University's
tenure code, but the administration tried to claim the "good behavior" and
"efficient and competent service" called for in the code could be interpreted
broadly by the committee. Accordingly, their only charge against Phillips and
Butterworth was that they were members of the Communist Party. To this charge
against Gundlach, they added others revolving around his alleged dishonesty
with Allen early in the investigation (He said "No one can prove I'm a
Communist, and I cannot prove that I am not."). Eby, Ethel and Jacobs were
similarly charged with dishonesty, based on their initial denial of their past
membership on the advice of their lawyers. The six-week-long hearings, during
which the professors were accorded the right to present their own cases, were
closed to the public.

The outcome of the hearings was not what the administration had hoped for. The
committee was unanimous only in recommending that Eby, Ethel and Jacobs not be
dismissed. It voted 8 to 3 against firing Phillips and Butterworth, despite
their open admission that they were members of the Communist Party, rejecting
the administration's plea for a broad interpretation of the tenure code. And
it recommended dismissal of Gundlach by a 7 to 4 vote, mainly on the basis of
what members saw as his dishonesty with Allen.

In his advice to the regents, Allen chose to overrule the committee. He agreed
with the recommendation to dismiss Gundlach but also advised that Phillips and
Butterworth be fired. He went along with the committee on the other three.
Why did Allen take such a hard line? Sanders believes he knew that some people
would have to be fired to satisfy the Legislature, and that probably not be
enough. The fact that Phillips and Butterworth had admitted party membership
and that they and Gundlach had refused to answer the Canwell Committee's
questions, made them easy targets.

(Left to right)
Professor Ralph Gundlach, attorney John Caughlan, and state Communist Party
Secretary Clayton van Lydegraf wait for the regents to rule on Gundlach's case.
The regents voted unanimously to fire Gundlach. Photo courtesy of Seattle
Post-Intelligencer Collection, Museum of History and Industry.

Although rumors circulated that some of the regents wanted to fire all six
professors, in the end they followed Allen's recommendations. Their judgment
was handed down Jan. 22, 1948; Phillips, Butterworth and Gundlach were taken
off the University payroll Feb. 1. Eby, Ethel and Jacobs remained, forced to
sign an affidavit that they were not members of the Communist Party and placed
on probation for two years.

According to Schrecker, Allen wanted to defend the University from outside
intervention and was willing to redefine academic freedom to do it. She
writes, "If we define academic freedom in institutional instead of ideological
terms, as the preservation of the professional autonomy of the academy, then we
can understand why so many people believed it was necessary to anticipate
outside pressures and get rid of Communist professors before reactionary
politicians. . . took over the task." Allen rested his case on the idea that
strict adherence to the party line
meant surrendering intellectual freedom and
that the secrecy of the party was the opposite of open inquiry--thus Communists
were disqualified from academic life.